Lacking formal demand-side tools like government purchase guarantees, the CHIPS Act team relied on persuasion and strategic influence—the 'bully pulpit.' They actively engaged major customers like Apple and Nvidia to signal demand for new US-based fabs, creating market confidence through informal channels.
Related Insights
The first draft of the CHIPS Program Office's guiding "Vision for Success" paper was a historical analysis of how the U.S. lost its semiconductor manufacturing edge. This diagnostic approach was replaced with a forward-looking, target-setting document to be more practical and less academic for stakeholders.
While simple, tax credits are a passive tool. Discretionary funding grants, like those in the CHIPS Act, allow government agencies to actively negotiate for specific strategic outcomes, such as compelling a company to build an extra fab or onshore a critical technology that a tax credit alone would not incentivize.
The CHIPS program office developed an internal "4Cs" framework to systematically evaluate funding applications. This model assessed projects based on manufacturing volume (Capacity), technological know-how (Capability), market dynamics (Competition), and importance to end-use markets (Criticality), ensuring consistent and fair decision-making.
The current trade friction is part of a larger, long-term bipartisan U.S. strategy of "competitive confrontation." This involves not just tariffs but also significant domestic investment, like the CHIPS Act, to build resilient supply chains and reduce reliance on China for critical industries, a trend expected to persist across administrations.
Tech giants often initiate custom chip projects not with the primary goal of mass deployment, but to create negotiating power against incumbents like NVIDIA. The threat of a viable alternative is enough to secure better pricing and allocation, making the R&D cost a strategic investment.
The 2022 CHIPS Act was passed months before ChatGPT's launch. The subsequent AI-driven demand for semiconductors was not the primary driver for the legislation. The Act's incentives accelerated US manufacturing capacity, luckily positioning the nation to capitalize on an unanticipated boom.
A small team in the Biden White House successfully implemented crucial export controls on semiconductor technology before ChatGPT's release made AI a mainstream obsession, allowing them to act proactively rather than reactively.
The CHIPS team's primary goal was securing a commitment for three TSMC fabs, viewing it as a strategic tipping point. They believed the operational scale of a three-fab cluster would make building a fourth, fifth, and sixth a near certainty, creating a self-sustaining 'mega fab' without requiring subsidies for later expansions.
Trump's praise for Intel transforms the complex CHIPS Act investment into a simple, successful financial transaction for voters ('made...tens of billions...in just four months'). This narrative bypasses nuanced policy debate, making strategic industrial policy immediately understandable and popular with the public.
Demonstrating a collaborative approach to "friend-shoring," some allied governments actively asked the U.S. CHIPS Program Office to refer semiconductor projects that were considered but ultimately not funded. These countries were eager to use their own subsidies to attract manufacturing capacity that the U.S. couldn't accommodate.